Soil surface flux measurements are a reliable means for assessing fugitive gas migration across soils and seasons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As oil and gas wells age and the number of wells drilled increases to meet demand, we may see more instances of fugitive soil gas migration (GM) and associated methane (CH4) emissions. Due to the immense spatiotemporal variability of soils and uncertainty in measurement practice, the detection and quantification of GM emissions is a challenge. Two common measurement techniques include the shallow in-soil gas concentration approach and soil surface flux measurements using flux chambers. In this numerical modeling study, both methods were compared to determine how soil texture, environmental conditions (water content, temperature), and CH4 leak rates into the soil profile influenced in-soil CH4 concentration and surface CH4 flux rates. We observed that in-soil CH4 concentration was strongly controlled by soil texture and environmental conditions, whereas surface CH4 flux rates were far less sensitive to those same parameters. Flux measurements were more useful for determining severity of the CH4 leak into the soil and allowed us to differentiate between leak and nonleak scenarios in soils with biological CH4 production which could complicate a GM assessment. We also evaluated field measurements of carbon dioxide from an enhanced oil recovery site to demonstrate how seasonal conditions can influence concentrations of trace gases in shallow soil. Based on our model results and supplemental field measurements, we propose that flux chamber measurements present a more reliable tool to assess the incidence and severity of fugitive GM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".